028 - Broad vs Narrow
Let’s start with the problem
We see the world through a flawed lens. There are a million terms for this idea: “target fixation,” “missing the forest for the trees,” “anchoring,” “framing.” The list goes on.
The point is—we get so used to “the rules of the game” that we miss it when the game changes.
David Kilcullen explores this idea in fascinating detail in The Dragons and the Snakes. If you’re into geopolitics, check out Episode 023 with David. The TL;DR version of the book is that success can breed failure. Since the West dominated the traditional battlefield, its enemies found new ways to fight. China embraced a much wider view of war, including economic, legal, and technological avenues to fight the West. David called this tactic conceptual envelopment. Similarly, the Russians have sidestepped traditional battlefield confrontations by “surfing the edge,” as David would say, of confrontation. The Russians blur the lines and exploit the slow reaction times of Western powers.
The takeaway: don’t get mired in the old way of fighting.
In my recent episode with Brian DeChesare, a similar concept comes up at the very end. He mentions that very driven people tend to confine themselves to options (a, b, c) when there are many more that exist. We get sucked into optimizing for the wrong thing, and we grind away for trivial gains while leaving the critical variables unexamined.
Hollywood gives an awesome false frame example in the Dark Knight. Batman’s butler, Alfred, tells the story of his search for a jewel thief in Burma. Alfred and his team search the villages and black markets for the stolen jewels—all to no avail. Until they find a child playing with a huge ruby. They realized that the “thief” wasn’t a thief at all. He was throwing the stones away because he just wanted to cause chaos. Once they realized that the problem was different, they could pivot and make real progress. Their false assumption caused a lot of wasted effort.
For a more real-life example, there’s a funny Harvard Business Review article by Peter Bregman where a “sibling fighting problem” is reframed as a “morning crankiness problem.” The link is in the show notes https://hbr.org/2015/12/are-you-solving-the-wrong-problem. It turned out that the solution was orange juice rather than a lecture on the golden rule.
If we find ourselves grinding away without making progress, it can be a good time to try to rethink our assumptions. But this is way easier said than done.
So what’s the solution?
If it’s possible that our assumptions are wrong, we need to take a moment to consider what we might think is goofy. If convention isn’t working, it’s time to start breaking the rules—if only as a thought experiment.
So here are some questions to ask and threads to pull:
· First, reconsider the obvious
o What is obvious?
o What clear facts are present?
o List them out and toggle them on and off to see if breakthrough ideas present themselves.
o Ask yourself how you know these obvious facts are true.
· Second, role play—how would a completely different person approach the issue
o There’s a link in the show notes to a site called 16 Personalities https://www.16personalities.com/personality-types
o It uses the Meyers Briggs classifications to construct some character archetypes
o Put yourself in the shoes of a different type, and imagine how that person might approach the problem
o You could also imagine an advisory council of people (and this could be past or present) who you admire
· Third, use arbitrary restriction
o What tools are available?
o Imagine throwing them out and starting from scratch
o What else is possible?
o How could you solve the problem if you had no resources whatsoever.
· Fourth, consider your untapped resources
o What allies haven’t you called on?
o What hidden assets haven’t you considered?
o What inventory or skills or contacts or tests are going underutilized? Think of the way AirBnb has unlocked the ability to rent out vacant real estate.
· Fifth, use physical cues
o What’s your physical status right now?
o How can you change your environment to stimulate different, novel thoughts?
o Take a freezing shower
o Go for a walk
o To change your perspective—literally change your vantage point
o Toggle the stimulus from your five senses to break free of the thinking ruts you’re in
· Finally, imagine the problem didn’t exist
o Is it possible that you don’t need to solve the problem?
o Is it possible that the problem can be sidestepped instead of tackled head-on?
o Is the problem taking its power from another controllable factor? How can that factor be addressed?
Strategy Chain Links
Rate and review the podcast at https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/strategy-chain/id1492935567
Find Amazon affiliate links at http://strategychainpodcast.com/support
Send me questions at http://strategychainpodcast.com/contact
Sign up for the email list at http://strategychainpodcast.com/
Social Media @strategychain (Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, Medium)